The debate showcased typical Midwestern traits, and Vance emerged victorious.
The Ohio senator is known for his ability to increase pressure strategically. The debate demonstrated that he can also display charisma.
TroibNews 
JD Vance presented a polished performance with a sharper critique of Kamala Harris than his running mate, Donald Trump, did in their recent debate. In contrast, Tim Walz took time to find his footing and struggled even when he did.
The debate focused more on policy than personal attacks, and Vance emerged as the victor based on style.
For one evening, Vance managed to sidestep his controversial remarks about women and families, as well as his erroneous claims about immigrants in Ohio. Meanwhile, Walz had some noteworthy moments, particularly when he challenged Vance on not acknowledging Trump's loss in the 2020 election. However, he also had a particularly awkward moment when he alluded to a misstatement regarding his presence in China during the Tiananmen Square protests, which he described as a "misspoke."
As the two candidates arrived in New York, headlines dubbed this the most significant vice presidential debate in history. Whether it truly lived up to that claim remains uncertain, but it is likely the final debate before Americans cast their votes in November.
We asked six PMG campaign reporters and editors for their insights on the Walz-Vance debate:
**Who had the better night?**
**Holly Otterbein:** The expectation was that Vance would be combative, and he did go after Walz hard at times. However, he also adopted a softer approach, suggesting that while Walz wanted to address issues, Harris did not. This strategy appeared to unsettle Walz. As the debate progressed, Walz found his rhythm, passionately arguing that Trump had only built a small portion of the wall while sabotaging a border security bill for political gain. His most compelling moment came at the end when he pressed Vance on Trump's 2020 election loss.
**Steve Shepard:** Vance wins on points. He seemed more at ease and avoided any significant blunders. Walz occasionally displayed an overly enthusiastic folksiness, especially on domestic policy. His passionate defense of abortion rights prompted Vance to acknowledge Republicans’ ongoing public relations challenges on that front, making it a significant moment despite Vance being the better overall debater.
**Lisa Kashinsky:** Vance performed better, showcasing the benefits of his extensive media training. He appeared composed and presented a strong case against Harris, unlike Trump in his previous debate. Walz, on the other hand, seemed nervous from the start, struggling with pauses that gave the impression he was trying to recall his carefully prepared points. The debate was not the optimal venue for Walz, whose charm lies in his personable demeanor.
**Eugene Daniels:** This debate could go down as the most Midwestern in vice presidential history, but Vance deserves credit. The expectations set by Walz's team seemed largely accurate—debating is not his strength. Initially, Walz appeared anxious, while Vance looked more confident. Although Walz improved as the debate unfolded, particularly on healthcare and abortion, Vance effectively linked Harris to Biden, which had been a focus of Trump's campaign.
**Adam Wren:** Vance clearly had the edge. The strategy of keeping Walz low-profile since his August rollout backfired during the debate. Walz’s response to the Tiananmen Square question was shaky, raising questions about why they didn’t better prepare him for such critical moments. Vance did adopt a “softer touch,” frequently referencing his children, perhaps to soften his image. A notable moment was when he expressed empathy for Walz’s son, highlighting Vance's attempt to present a more human side.
**Natalie Allison:** I share Adam's perspective; Walz seemed uneasy throughout the debate, with several awkward pauses. He occasionally channeled his folksy persona effectively, highlighting shared values with Vance, yet Vance, sporting a pink tie, came off as more engaging on stage.
**How will the debate change the trajectory of the race?**
**Shepard:** Unless either candidate leads their party's ticket in the near future, the debate will have minimal impact.
**Wren:** Despite being billed as a crucial showdown, it's hard to see how this debate will shift public opinion. Voters are unlikely to re-evaluate their stance based on a matchup between Walz and Vance.
**Allison:** For those not deeply invested in politics, this debate likely wasn’t compelling enough to catch their full attention. Many may have found Ohio Republican Senate primary debates more entertaining.
**Otterbein:** While some clips may circulate highlighting blunders, it’s unlikely that the debate will significantly alter opinions.
**Daniels:** Given that both candidates avoided major blunders, a low-key debate like this won’t lead to any shifts in public sentiment. This race has shown resistance to dramatic changes.
**Kashinsky:** Vance’s performance might have prompted Trump to assert he would veto a national abortion ban—a noteworthy takeaway in contrast to his previous evasiveness on the topic.
**What’s the one moment each candidate will regret, and what will we remember about this debate a year from now?**
**Allison:** Walz's regret will likely center around his faltering response to the Tiananmen Square question, as well as his mention of becoming "friends with school shooters." Those moments stood out as particularly awkward. For Vance, the regret might stem from not addressing Walz's question about Trump's 2020 loss more clearly, considering Trump's attention during the debate.
In the end, there may not be much to remember from this debate. Trump's online rants and a policy announcement during the debate might overshadow it.
**Kashinsky:** I completely agree, particularly with Walz's admission that he’s sometimes a “knucklehead.” While self-deprecation can be humorous, that remark could be easily misinterpreted by the Trump campaign, reminiscent of the way Democrats capitalized on Trump's vague health care plans.
**Wren:** It’s hard not to consider how Pete Buttigieg might have fared against Vance instead. Walz’s answer about Tiananmen Square will likely linger in the minds of viewers.
**Otterbein:** Walz’s remark about “misspeaking” on his Tiananmen Square timeline was painfully awkward. Another notable moment was when moderator Margaret Brennan cut off Vance's attempt at defense after clarifying his remarks about Haitian migrants, a moment that resonated with Democrats online.
**Shepard:** Walz’s ineffective response to the Tiananmen Square question was glaring, especially when he filled pauses with aimless talk, worsening an already bad answer.
For Vance, the phrase “Americans don’t trust us on abortion” may haunt him, as it reflects a broader concern within his party, providing ammunition for his opponents.
Mathilde Moreau contributed to this report for TROIB News
The debate focused more on policy than personal attacks, and Vance emerged as the victor based on style.
For one evening, Vance managed to sidestep his controversial remarks about women and families, as well as his erroneous claims about immigrants in Ohio. Meanwhile, Walz had some noteworthy moments, particularly when he challenged Vance on not acknowledging Trump's loss in the 2020 election. However, he also had a particularly awkward moment when he alluded to a misstatement regarding his presence in China during the Tiananmen Square protests, which he described as a "misspoke."
As the two candidates arrived in New York, headlines dubbed this the most significant vice presidential debate in history. Whether it truly lived up to that claim remains uncertain, but it is likely the final debate before Americans cast their votes in November.
We asked six PMG campaign reporters and editors for their insights on the Walz-Vance debate:
**Who had the better night?**
**Holly Otterbein:** The expectation was that Vance would be combative, and he did go after Walz hard at times. However, he also adopted a softer approach, suggesting that while Walz wanted to address issues, Harris did not. This strategy appeared to unsettle Walz. As the debate progressed, Walz found his rhythm, passionately arguing that Trump had only built a small portion of the wall while sabotaging a border security bill for political gain. His most compelling moment came at the end when he pressed Vance on Trump's 2020 election loss.
**Steve Shepard:** Vance wins on points. He seemed more at ease and avoided any significant blunders. Walz occasionally displayed an overly enthusiastic folksiness, especially on domestic policy. His passionate defense of abortion rights prompted Vance to acknowledge Republicans’ ongoing public relations challenges on that front, making it a significant moment despite Vance being the better overall debater.
**Lisa Kashinsky:** Vance performed better, showcasing the benefits of his extensive media training. He appeared composed and presented a strong case against Harris, unlike Trump in his previous debate. Walz, on the other hand, seemed nervous from the start, struggling with pauses that gave the impression he was trying to recall his carefully prepared points. The debate was not the optimal venue for Walz, whose charm lies in his personable demeanor.
**Eugene Daniels:** This debate could go down as the most Midwestern in vice presidential history, but Vance deserves credit. The expectations set by Walz's team seemed largely accurate—debating is not his strength. Initially, Walz appeared anxious, while Vance looked more confident. Although Walz improved as the debate unfolded, particularly on healthcare and abortion, Vance effectively linked Harris to Biden, which had been a focus of Trump's campaign.
**Adam Wren:** Vance clearly had the edge. The strategy of keeping Walz low-profile since his August rollout backfired during the debate. Walz’s response to the Tiananmen Square question was shaky, raising questions about why they didn’t better prepare him for such critical moments. Vance did adopt a “softer touch,” frequently referencing his children, perhaps to soften his image. A notable moment was when he expressed empathy for Walz’s son, highlighting Vance's attempt to present a more human side.
**Natalie Allison:** I share Adam's perspective; Walz seemed uneasy throughout the debate, with several awkward pauses. He occasionally channeled his folksy persona effectively, highlighting shared values with Vance, yet Vance, sporting a pink tie, came off as more engaging on stage.
**How will the debate change the trajectory of the race?**
**Shepard:** Unless either candidate leads their party's ticket in the near future, the debate will have minimal impact.
**Wren:** Despite being billed as a crucial showdown, it's hard to see how this debate will shift public opinion. Voters are unlikely to re-evaluate their stance based on a matchup between Walz and Vance.
**Allison:** For those not deeply invested in politics, this debate likely wasn’t compelling enough to catch their full attention. Many may have found Ohio Republican Senate primary debates more entertaining.
**Otterbein:** While some clips may circulate highlighting blunders, it’s unlikely that the debate will significantly alter opinions.
**Daniels:** Given that both candidates avoided major blunders, a low-key debate like this won’t lead to any shifts in public sentiment. This race has shown resistance to dramatic changes.
**Kashinsky:** Vance’s performance might have prompted Trump to assert he would veto a national abortion ban—a noteworthy takeaway in contrast to his previous evasiveness on the topic.
**What’s the one moment each candidate will regret, and what will we remember about this debate a year from now?**
**Allison:** Walz's regret will likely center around his faltering response to the Tiananmen Square question, as well as his mention of becoming "friends with school shooters." Those moments stood out as particularly awkward. For Vance, the regret might stem from not addressing Walz's question about Trump's 2020 loss more clearly, considering Trump's attention during the debate.
In the end, there may not be much to remember from this debate. Trump's online rants and a policy announcement during the debate might overshadow it.
**Kashinsky:** I completely agree, particularly with Walz's admission that he’s sometimes a “knucklehead.” While self-deprecation can be humorous, that remark could be easily misinterpreted by the Trump campaign, reminiscent of the way Democrats capitalized on Trump's vague health care plans.
**Wren:** It’s hard not to consider how Pete Buttigieg might have fared against Vance instead. Walz’s answer about Tiananmen Square will likely linger in the minds of viewers.
**Otterbein:** Walz’s remark about “misspeaking” on his Tiananmen Square timeline was painfully awkward. Another notable moment was when moderator Margaret Brennan cut off Vance's attempt at defense after clarifying his remarks about Haitian migrants, a moment that resonated with Democrats online.
**Shepard:** Walz’s ineffective response to the Tiananmen Square question was glaring, especially when he filled pauses with aimless talk, worsening an already bad answer.
For Vance, the phrase “Americans don’t trust us on abortion” may haunt him, as it reflects a broader concern within his party, providing ammunition for his opponents.
Mathilde Moreau contributed to this report for TROIB News
